Perhaps because some folks are "conscientious" about safety, and some are "fanatical."

An NRA personal protection instructor asked a police Captain to teach the one hour block concerning the legalities of self/home defense. he asked the captain to please wear his uniform fot trhe effect.

When the captain arrived, prepared to teach the class, the instructor told him that NRA safety rules did not allow loaded firearms in the classroom. He actually asked this uniformed captain to leave his service weapon in his car.

Can you say FANATIC?

__________________For those who have fought for it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know

Quite frankly, anyone who advocates not having a loaded firearm at the ready is not someone you want any kind of firearms usage instruction from.

If the police, the people society trains and pays to chase after criminals, are not permitted to carry their duty firearms with them, then undesirable consequences are certain to follow.

Some people are mentally equipped to contend with the fact that they are carrying a potentially lethal tool, like a knife or a hammer, and some are not. That is a fact. It still does not change the simple fact that nobody can as easily defend themselves against someone who is younger/stronger/faster/more violent while they are unarmed than they can with a firearm.

From having taught unarmed self defense classes, I still recommend carrying a firearm and receiving appropriate firearms training to those students. No matter how much hand-to-hand combat training you have, there will always be someone who is bigger/stronger/faster/better trained than you. The objective of those classes is to teach students techniques, tactics, and procedures that give them the best chance of surviving a criminal assault with the lowest likelihood of injury, not to concern them with how "safe" (mythical concept) or "unsafe" (another mytical concept) the particular TTP might be.

Life is not "safe" or "unsafe". There are people who willfully choose to recognize that criminal assault is a problem within our society, as it is with virtually all other "civilized" (one of the greatest modern mythical concepts of them all) societies and people who don't. All the excuses in the world about how "dangerous" or "unsafe" carrying a firearm may be won't amount to a hill of beans if you find yourself in a situation where you are unable to run away or receive immediate assistance from other people wherein you are the subject of a criminal assault that you can't defend against with your hands and feet.

It's shocking to come to the conclusion that:
1. The police, while a visible deterrent against criminal activity, will never be where you need them the second you need them.

Apparently high school level statistical probability is not a concept that's taught or passed by liberals and protectionists. If you live in a city of millions of people and have just a few thousand police officers sum total, only half of whom are likely to be working at a particular point in time, what's the probability that one will be exactly where you need him/her?

An even more apparent lack of knowledge amongst liberals and protectionists concerning criminal assault is the understanding of likelihood of criminal assault to severity of outcome. You're not very likely to come into contact with a power line, but most people who have 10,000 volts pass through their body die on the spot.

2. In a "nation of laws", the judiciary has determined that the police, those who "serve and protect", have no specific duty to serve and protect you or anyone else.

The Supreme Court tried to tell everyone that the police are not there to "serve and protect" you, but no liberal or protectionist is listening. Their belief systems are still firmly rooted in the notion that "everything will go along if you just learn to get along". There are few more dangerous or spectacularly flawed ideas than that one. For all those out there who believe in religion, Jesus may have turned the other cheek, but the foreigners in his country and his own people still nailed him to a cross and let him die a slow, painful death. His crime? Not paying tribute to the overseers (government, religious figureheads, politicians, political group).

3. Nobody but you has your best interest in mind, not even your own parents. In point of fact, using only slightly different words, my own parents conveyed this pearl of wisdom to me when I was still a child. They loved me enough to realize that any choices they attempted to make on my behalf were choices that they would choose to make, not necessarily the ones I would choose to make.

Put simply, your elected officials, the police, the military, your next door neighbor, etc don't have your best interest in mind. They have their interests in mind. This is completely at odds with the principles and concepts backing the police, military, and shared power structure of our three branches of government.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that nobody is taking your guns away from you for your own protection. If you kill yourself, the police could care less and really can't do anything meaningful to you upon your death. That said, the police will take firearms away from suicidal people not because they are concerned about whether or not the suicidal person shoots him or her self, but because they are concerned about being shot themselves.

So, to recap:

1. Our "civilized" society is a dangerous place that unfortunately requires the knowledge and skill to use lethal weapons for survival.

2. Anybody who thinks that you can't be trusted with the tools they want a specific individual, like a police officer or soldier, to use on their behalf is most definitely not to be trusted and probably shouldn't have the right to vote, drive a car, use a firearm, procreate, or speak in public lest the rest of the people be subjected to their self-destructive ideas or tendencies.

3. You can't count on anyone but yourself when you are making life altering choices. With that knowledge, be good to yourself and to other people. Freedom comes with responsibility, the more people who believe this and act like they believe it, the better a society we will create for ourselves and our children.

Well, I work in the safety field- and yes, there are situations where "safety" in the sense of following a rule instead of using common sense borders on the ridiculous.

"All workers that enter the highway work zone must wear an ANSI Level 3 high visibility vest." OK- makes sense. Trying to apply that to the driver of a dump truck that is IN the cab of the truck- and will never leave the cab while in the workzone- is rather silly.

Problem arises when someone attempts to use a perjorative term like "Safety Sally" to mock someone for being reasonably cautious. When reloading, I will only keep ONE powder out on the bench. Other must go back into storage. Am I being a Safety Sally? May be- but I will never mix up the Bullseye and the 2400.

Just before my wife left the city, they instituted a policy that all employees must wear hardhats while working, including hers. Keep in mind she ran a botanical park and greenhouses. Her group was required to wear the hardhats to trim the rose bushes, water the flowers, pull the weeds, etc.

Sometimes, the safety folks just don't think.

__________________

Scott

Quote:

If you're not representing Jesus in a way that makes people want to hang out with you, you're doing it wrong.

Quote:

Those who refuse to participate in politics shall be governed by their inferiors. -Plato

Quite frankly, anyone who advocates not having a loaded firearm at the ready is not someone you want any kind of firearms usage instruction from.

If the police, the people society trains and pays to chase after criminals, are not permitted to carry their duty firearms with them, then undesirable consequences are certain to follow.

Some people are mentally equipped to contend with the fact that they are carrying a potentially lethal tool, like a knife or a hammer, and some are not. That is a fact. It still does not change the simple fact that nobody can as easily defend themselves against someone who is younger/stronger/faster/more violent while they are unarmed than they can with a firearm.

From having taught unarmed self defense classes, I still recommend carrying a firearm and receiving appropriate firearms training to those students. No matter how much hand-to-hand combat training you have, there will always be someone who is bigger/stronger/faster/better trained than you. The objective of those classes is to teach students techniques, tactics, and procedures that give them the best chance of surviving a criminal assault with the lowest likelihood of injury, not to concern them with how "safe" (mythical concept) or "unsafe" (another mytical concept) the particular TTP might be.

Life is not "safe" or "unsafe". There are people who willfully choose to recognize that criminal assault is a problem within our society, as it is with virtually all other "civilized" (one of the greatest modern mythical concepts of them all) societies and people who don't. All the excuses in the world about how "dangerous" or "unsafe" carrying a firearm may be won't amount to a hill of beans if you find yourself in a situation where you are unable to run away or receive immediate assistance from other people wherein you are the subject of a criminal assault that you can't defend against with your hands and feet.

It's shocking to come to the conclusion that:
1. The police, while a visible deterrent against criminal activity, will never be where you need them the second you need them.

Apparently high school level statistical probability is not a concept that's taught or passed by liberals and protectionists. If you live in a city of millions of people and have just a few thousand police officers sum total, only half of whom are likely to be working at a particular point in time, what's the probability that one will be exactly where you need him/her?

An even more apparent lack of knowledge amongst liberals and protectionists concerning criminal assault is the understanding of likelihood of criminal assault to severity of outcome. You're not very likely to come into contact with a power line, but most people who have 10,000 volts pass through their body die on the spot.

2. In a "nation of laws", the judiciary has determined that the police, those who "serve and protect", have no specific duty to serve and protect you or anyone else.

The Supreme Court tried to tell everyone that the police are not there to "serve and protect" you, but no liberal or protectionist is listening. Their belief systems are still firmly rooted in the notion that "everything will go along if you just learn to get along". There are few more dangerous or spectacularly flawed ideas than that one. For all those out there who believe in religion, Jesus may have turned the other cheek, but the foreigners in his country and his own people still nailed him to a cross and let him die a slow, painful death. His crime? Not paying tribute to the overseers (government, religious figureheads, politicians, political group).

3. Nobody but you has your best interest in mind, not even your own parents. In point of fact, using only slightly different words, my own parents conveyed this pearl of wisdom to me when I was still a child. They loved me enough to realize that any choices they attempted to make on my behalf were choices that they would choose to make, not necessarily the ones I would choose to make.

Put simply, your elected officials, the police, the military, your next door neighbor, etc don't have your best interest in mind. They have their interests in mind. This is completely at odds with the principles and concepts backing the police, military, and shared power structure of our three branches of government.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that nobody is taking your guns away from you for your own protection. If you kill yourself, the police could care less and really can't do anything meaningful to you upon your death. That said, the police will take firearms away from suicidal people not because they are concerned about whether or not the suicidal person shoots him or her self, but because they are concerned about being shot themselves.

So, to recap:

1. Our "civilized" society is a dangerous place that unfortunately requires the knowledge and skill to use lethal weapons for survival.

2. Anybody who thinks that you can't be trusted with the tools they want a specific individual, like a police officer or soldier, to use on their behalf is most definitely not to be trusted and probably shouldn't have the right to vote, drive a car, use a firearm, procreate, or speak in public lest the rest of the people be subjected to their self-destructive ideas or tendencies.

3. You can't count on anyone but yourself when you are making life altering choices. With that knowledge, be good to yourself and to other people. Freedom comes with responsibility, the more people who believe this and act like they believe it, the better a society we will create for ourselves and our children.